On Thu, 14 May 1998 12:54:48 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>SJ>"You, along with your theistic naturalistic colleagues have
>never really understood that if Christianity is true, that there really
>is a God who intervenes in history, then "progressive creation" is
>the default position."
JWB>I happen to think the PC explanation is the better of
>the two, Stephen. But I'm at a loss to the claim that it is a
>"default position." God created us; of this I am sure. But
>I have no knowledge that allows me to claim one way
>in particular must be the "default position."
Read what I said again. I prefaced my remarks with: "if...there
really is a God who intervenes in history...
My point is that TEs like Glenn just *assume* that evolution is
the default position. This is conceding the argument before it
starts.
JWB>I happen to think the TE position is very weak, but hardly
>indefensible and I have nothing but respect for those holding it.
Agreed that "TE position is very weak". I did not say that "the TE
position" was "indefensible". And you are confusing "respect"
for a "position" with "respect for those holding it." I have great
respect for some TEs.
JWB>The phrase you use, "along with your theistic naturalistic colleagues"
>leaves me baffled. If you meant exactly those words, maybe you can
>explain what you meant by them.
Exactly what they say. The phrase was coined by Johnson to describe
those theists who assume a priori that God would not (or even could
not) intervene supernaturally in the history of life:
"Whether such extraordinary events as the origin of life, the
origin of the plant and animal phyla, or the origin of human
consciousness can be satisfactorily explained in terms of
unintelligent natural causes should be an open question for theists.
A person who assumes a priori that such creation events must have
scientifically ascertainable material causes is a metaphysical
naturalist. If he believes in God he is a theistic naturalist, who
limits God's freedom by the dictates of naturalistic philosophy.
(Johnson P.E., "God and Evolution: An Exchange: Howard J. Van Till
- Phillip E. Johnson", First Things, June 1993.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)
JWB>The two questions you and Glenn have thrown to one another are, of
>course, of high interest. Do either of you have answers? I think I do.
>
>1. As a scientist, the PC explanation is, at best, of only passing
>interest. If SETI is successful, and if other evidences of intelligences
>equal to (or more likely greater than) humanity ever show up, then the PC
>explanation MIGHT (again, as a scientist) become more interesting.
While I do not rule out extra-terrestrial intelligent life, I would rule out
their making contact as incompatible with Christianity. For starters,
if advanced aliens had visited the Earth, then Jesus could have been
a spaceman.
And I regard "PC" (or more correctly MC) as being of more than
"only passing interest." I regard it as closest to the truth as
revealed in the `books' of both Scripture and nature.
And, as Will Provine says on his Darwin Day slides:
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
(http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html)
JWB>2. As a scientist, I continue to adhere to the MN foundational
>assumption; I do so on pragmatic grounds; nothing more.
We have had this discussion before. This is OK, if science is just
concerned with discovering the regularities of the ongoing *operations*
of the present physical universe. It is not OK when it extends to *origins*
(as it does) and apriori assumes that the orgin of the universe, life, life's
major groups, and consciousness, was fully "naturalistic".
JWB>3. The PC explanation is more satisfying (appears more likely to me) on
>philosophical grounds, and is a philosophical explanation, not a
>scientific one.
What "philosophical grounds"? And what about *theological* grounds?
JWB>4. What scientific differences would I expect to see between the two? I
>really don't know of any. Even the sudden discovery of a "hopeful
>monster" would not suffice. There is a species of insect, for example, in
>which siblings may differ in body shape from one another as much as, say,
>between a praying mantis and a beetle! The form offspring take (between
>those two) is determined by their feeding habits.
>The natural world is quite diverse, it seems.
The "scientific differences" between PC and TE are evident in the debates
we have on this Reflector! Basically TEs downplay design and any evidence
that natural mechanisms are inadequate to originate life, and life's complex
design.
>5. It is possible, of course, that if PC is true, there will be "gaps."
>Of course, given what we know of science, there will always be "gaps" in
>any event. So "gaps" don't cut it.
I don't even claim that "if PC is true, there will be `gaps.'", in the sense of *provable*
gaps. PC could still be true and the gaps be small. Conversely TE could claim that
even big gaps could be bridged by natural processes. But clearly big gaps are a plus
for PC and a problem for TE.
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------